D 613 
.W55 
Copy 1 



Mediation Without 
Armistice 

THE WISCONSIN PLAN 



Adopted by the 

National Peace Conference, at Chicago, Feb. 27, 28, 1915; 
Embodied in a Memorial to the President by the Wisconsin 
Legislature April 1, 1915 



Can a means be found by which a conference of the neu- 
tral powers may bring 1 the moral forces of the world to bear 
upon the present war situation, and offer to the belligerents 
some opportunity, involving neither committal to an arbi- 
trary programme nor compromise of the convictions for 
which they are fighting, to consider the possibility of peace? 



WISCONSIN PEACE SOCIETY 

Madison, Wisconsin 



Price 10 cents 




MEDIATION WI 



< an a means be found by which a conference of the neutral 
powers may bring the moral forces of the world to bear upon 
the present war situation, and offer to the belligerents some 
opportunity, involving neither committal to an arbitrary pro- 
gramme nor compromise of the convictions for which they 
are fighting, to consider the possibility of peace? 

In answer to this question there is offered here a plan 
for Mediation without Armistice. 

When great crises have arisen before, mankind has too 
often gone through them blindly and paid the costliest price 
for its lessons. It is one of the conventions of war that once 
blood has been shed, no further rational consideration of the 
questions at issue shall be attempted. Today if our scientific 
spirit and intellectual development are worth anything, we 
should be able, under the stress of emergency, to break 
through the paralysis of tradition and seek a rational way out, 
before the inexorable forces of nature shall have wrung from 
us the uttermost farthing. 

Let us imagine for the sake of argument that all the na- 
tions now fighting were to awake tomorrow morning in their 
right minds, able to survey the wreck already caused, to sum 
up the suffering, the human loss, the economic loss ; able each 
to comprehend the motives that have driven the other into 
battle ; able to realize the futility of vengeance, the unwisdom 
and wrong of trying to crush or humiliate a race, the folly 
of continued competition, the advantages of co-operation. 
What under the^e circumstances would be the natural thing 
to do? Or, again, let us suppose that the neutral nations 
came to their senses; for is it not possible that they too have 
been paralyzed by a traditional mode of thinking ? Suppose 
that they were able to attack the problem with utter honesty, 
simplicity, and courage. What would be the natural thing 
for the neutral nations to do? 



3 



lo\3 

It is the general conviction that so far the neutral govern- 
ments are without sufficient opportunity to bring any definite 
influence to bear on the war situation. The belligerents dis- 
trust each other too much for armistice. And they see noth- 
ing to be gained by mediation at this stage, for it seems to 
them that a speedy settlement would mean compromise, and 
compromise would mean that hostilities would have to be re- 
sumed in the near future. Obviously, then, if the neutral 
powers were to bring their official influence to bear at present, 
they would have to mediate without armistice and without the 
specific permission of the warring powers, and in such a way 
as not to endanger neutrality, and would have to make a prop- 
osition that would not involve the evils of compromise. 

In view of the foregoing considerations, what, we ask again, 
would be the natural thing for the neutral nations to do — 
those neutral nations to whom the task of thinking open- 
mindedly for the world is, for the time being, entrusted? 
The natural thing for them to do would be to come together 
in conference and endeavor to frame a reasonable proposi- 
tion. They would append to it all conceivable arguments 
for its adoption, every possible appeal to the self-interest of 
every warring nation. They would then submit the proposi- 
tion to the governments of all the warring nations simultane- 
ously, together with the following question : 

Will you agree to adopt or consider the accompanying- 
proposition as a basis of peace if and when the governments 
of the other warring powers will agree to do likewise? 

The proposition itself would have to be worked out in de- 
tail by experts. It would be an attempt to discover those 
principles which underlie the welfare of all and which would 
constitute a foundation for permanent peace. It would doubt- 
less suggest the establishment of something in the nature of a 
Peace League to be protected by a co-operative armament. It 
may be that tbe conference would have difficulty in agreeing 
upon the terms of the initial standing proposal. In that case 
several proposals could be put forward at the same time, rep- 
resenting various theories of sound settlement. 

If any government should reply in the negative, reply in- 

(3) * 



definitely, or refuse to reply at all, the neutral powers would 
place before it the following requests : 

(1) If at any time while the war continues, you are will- 
ing" to adopt or consider our proposition, or a modified form 
of our proposition, as a basis of peace provided the other 
warring- powers will do likewise, we beg that you will notify 
the conference of the neutral powers. 

(2) In the meantime the conference of the neutral powers, 
WHICH WILL SIT WHILE THE WAR CONTINUES, will 
be grateful to receive any information which you may care 
to give as to your ultimate wishes — that is, as to the maxi- 
mum which you desire to obtain — in order that the confer- 
ence may be aided in an effort to discover at the earliest 
possible moment a plan of settlement such as may appeal to 
all as worthy of consideration. 

The conference would then proceed to frame and put for- 
ward further standing proposals. 

The immediate advantages of such a course of action from 
the point of view of the neutral nation's would be (1) that it 
avoids the necessity of securing an armistice or the permis- 
sion of the warring powers to mediate; (2) that it avoids 
the necessity of passing judgment on the past; (3) that it 
endangers no one's neutrality; (4) that it gives an opportun- 
ity to ascertain the attitude of the belligerents by an appeal 
to the future; (5) that it would put forward a radical plan 
free from the evils resulting from compromise — a plan which, 
if it could shorten the present war, would tend also to prevent 
similar wars in the future. 

Now what practically could such a course of action on the 
part of the neutral powers be expected to accomplish? 

First, what is the minimum gain that could be expected 
with reasonable confidence ? The minimum gain would be 
the lifting of the programme of pacifism into the realm of 
serious political consideration. As a proposition made seri- 
ously from governments to governments, it would gain a hear- 
ing, it would have a psychological effect, such as no private 
propaganda could ever give it. It would focus the thought 
of the world at least momentarily on international righteous- 

(4)' 



ness. It would give a concrete expression to the inarticulate 
passion of all idealists both in the peaceful and the troubled 
lands. And if ever in the world's history there was dire need 
of such a common expression, it is now. 

By voicing an international political faith, the movement 
would tend, furthermore, to give a new solidarity to popular 
sentiment in those lands whose population is made up of 
many races. For instance, it would relieve large numbers of 
Americans of European birth or ancestry from an intolerable 
sense of estrangement from many of their fellow Americans. 
It would enable them to join hands in one great task and to 
weld into one enthusiasm their affection for their fatherland, 
their loyalty and devotion to America, their friendship for 
the whole world. Hence the racial diversity of the United 
States would be rendered cne of the most potent forces mak- 
ing for peace. 

And should the neutral nations of the world accept the in- 
vitation of cne of their number to send representatives to 
a conference, such a deliberative body, sitting as Ion"- as 
the emergency continues, would present a spectacle of pro- 
found significance — one that would go far to restore the 
shaken faith of humanity and enable it to set its face with 
new hope toward the goal of ultimate World Federation. 

As to the question what is the most that the plan might 
accomplish, we should hesitate to base serious argument upon 
the answer. Yet it may be worth while to consider for a 
moment some of the forces which might conceivably be 
brought into action. First, what might the proposition gain 
from the motives of self-interest (1) in peoples, (2) in gov- 
ernments \ 

Since the initial standing proposal is not a matter of secret 
diplomacy, but is made openly before the face of all people, 
it will come to the knowledge of the people of Great Britain 
and her colonies through the British and American press. 
Neutral periodicals pass freely into Canada. Neutral views 
of the war are discussed freely in England. The Brit- 
ish censorship is strict with regard to the immediate facts of 
the campaign ; but though there may have been some attempts 

(5) 



on the part of the government to check free discussion in the 
press, it would be easy to bring evidence to prove that there 
is no considerable censorship in England of ideas and opin- 
ions. A British editorial * indicates the policy which should 
be adopted at the end of the war: "What we have to 
do is to get rid of the Balance of Power and substitute 
for it a League of Peace with as much power as possible 
on one side. It is not a question of disarmament. The 
League of Peace, like the policeman, must be better pre- 
pared than anyone else to use force if necessary. The idea 
is not visionary unless democracy is only a vision. The 
vast majority of the people of the three great Western 
powers — England, France, and Germany — as well as of Bel- 
gium, Holland, and Scandinavia, are quite ready to give their 
support to such a League. At the moment the people of Ger- 
many are suffering from delusions (not unlike some of our 
own delusions) which might make them disinclined to consider 
the proposition. But their interests and inclinations are es- 
sentially identical with ours, * * * and they will not 
long stand out against a plan which will relieve them perma- 
nently of what has long been an intolerable burden of fear 
and suspicion." 

We have thus an opportunity to appeal to a body of opin- 
ion already strongly disposed to look with favor upon a pro- 
posal for a settlement that will make for permanent peace. 
Now the temptation to sound thinking which such a proposal 
presents will increase steadily in force with the increase of 
economic pressure. Moreover, the plan will enlist on its side 
the argument of fear itself, the strongest force which is at 
present making for war. The great argument w T ith which 
Great Britain has appealed to her people and colonies is the 
danger that defeat would mean at the least increased arma- 
ments in the future, military enslavement, the weakening of 
the democratic principle. This is the appeal that has marched 
out the armies of the British Empire. But to such a motive 
our proposition would make an appeal yet stronger, for it 



* The New Statesman (London) November 14, 1914. 

(6) 



would promise security not only from the aggression of a vic- 
tor but from the revenge of a vanquished foe. It would 
promise freedom, nationality, democracy in no uncertain 
terms. 

It will be objected that at present, nevertheless, national 
hatred is too bitter to permit the sane consideration of peace 
proposals. We cannot too much emphasize the point, how- 
ever, that national hatred is born of and nourished by fear. 
So far as the twentieth century is concerned, pure hatred is 
too non-material and at the same time negative a motive to 
keep masses of people fighting in the face of severe economic 
pressure. If fear be eliminated, hatred will die a speedy 
and natural death. Moreover it would be easy to bring evi- 
dence gathered from partisan periodicals to show the com- 
punction which each side feels in destroying the other, the 
kind treatment accorded to prisoners, the friendly relations 
between the soldiers in the trenches. All would be thankful 
to return if they could to ''normal humane living." Again, 
the contemplation of a proposal based on the principles of 
universal welfare will of itself tend to diminish national 
hatred and to hasten the time when settlement will be pos- 
sible. And this goal may be nearer than we think. It is fear, 
we repeat, rather than hatred which keeps the nations fighting, 
fear which is strong enough for a time to overcome the great 
counter force of economic pressure. But economic pressure 
is a force inexorable and final, which must sometime and in 
some way bring a cessation of hostilities. It is the one for- 
midable ally of those who would fight the battle of peace. 

The very emulation of the belligerents should spur them to 
adopt the creditable course. They have all turned to the neu- 
tral peoples, vociferous in self-justification. Each nation says 
that it is not to blame ; that it did not seek the Avar ; that it 
was forced to fight in self-defence immediate or anticipatory ; 
that it has to contend with those with whom it would fain 
have been friendly ; that it has no motive of cruelty, only that 
motive of tenderness to its own which for the time being has 
rendered necessary a stern closing of the heart to pity for 

CO 



others; that the means it has used are justified by a vital end 
and a desperate necessity; that the motive is ultimately the 
preservation of an ideal and the welfare of the human family. 
If these protestations are sincere — and it is by no means clear 
that we have adequate reason for doubting them — it is not 
strange that we have felt unable to commit ourselves to any 
final judgment of the moral attitude of any party to the con- 
flict. We cannot estimate past motives : we cannot distin- 
guish perfectly between the actions of peoples and the actions 
of governments, between the responsibility of one nation and 
that of another. And there is a sense in which all are to 
blame. We are all human together, stumbling out of dark- 
ness into a twilight of imperfect knowledge. Nevertheless 
it is true that by so persistently courting our approval, 
whether sincerely or with a sordid motive, the belligerents 
have laid themselves open to any ethical challenge we choose 
to propose to them; and there is a test of sincerity to which 
they may even now be brought and to which they have given 
us the right to bring them — one that lies not in a scrutiny of 
the past but in an appeal to the future. 

The strength of the proposal for the formation of a Peace 
League lies in the fact that it offers a good bargain. While the 
concessions it demands of each government are large, the ad- 
vantages it presents, even from the point of view of what Mr. 
G. Lowes Dickinson calls the "governmental mind." are by no 
means small. All peoples would gain (1) immediate relief 
from intense economic pressure and excruciating suffering, 
(2) future freedom from military taxation, (3) security from 
future wars, (4) relief from the prospect of further loss of 
trade. All governments would gain a desirable exit from a 
difficult situation. The world would gain the safety of west- 
ern civilization, which is now threatened. Hence, there is 
no question that the appeal to the people of all countries 
would be very strong, especially after economic pressure had 
become extreme. At the least, the governments of all coun- 
tries would find it difficult, once the argument of self-defense 
was wrested from them, to keep the people enthusiastic for 
the continuation of the war. 

(8) 



But since the best hope of a peace movement lie* in the 
will of the people, what is gained by appealing from govern- 
ment to government instead of through the propaganda of 
peace organizations to the people themselves ? First, as we 
have seen, government action is the most effective action be- 
cause the most national, the most immediate, and the most 
conspicuous. Secondly, by such government action as we 
propose, we give the people of another country the invaluable 
aid of a ready-made proposition. We have relieved them of 
the difficulties, especially great in time of war, of initiation, 
formulation, organization, of getting a hearing with their own 
government. The campaign of those individuals and groups 
who desire to ally themselves with our movement is already 
organized. All they have to do is to importune their govern- 
ment to say yes. And thirdly, we have put into their hands 
this argument, that the plan has already been brought from 
the realm of the ideal into the realm of practical politics, 
that there is already in the world one government at least 
that regards it seriously as a political expedient. 

Through the plan of independent and continuous mediation 
without armistice — that is, through making simultaneous 
standing proposals to all — there is thus a chance, slight indeed 
and dependent upon the turn of circumstances, of materially 
affecting the duration and the outcome of the war. Be it ob- 
served that such a device would bring a steady psychological 
pressure to bear on the governments ; it would keep them un- 
der perpetual temptation to the right course. At present each 
side is resolved to fight practically to extermination rather 
than yield. Our proposal would hold before each, one hope 
of escape from indefinitely continuing a self-destructive strug- 
gle. Such are the possibilities of practical appeal on the 
ground of the sordid motives — fear, pride, desire for relief 
from suffering. 

But there are other motives than sordid ones to be consid- 
ered. Humanity is not a shallow thing. "When we think of 
the motives of mankind in the mass, we get into the habit of 
thinking of those motives which we can estimate and turn to 
practical account; and these are the lower motives; the higher 

(9) 



motives are incalculable. Idealism is from the point of view 
of practical politics an uncertain and therefore a negligible 
quantity ; but it exists. That it is not a practical force is 
due to the fact that we have not yet learned to liberate and 
use it. And today it is singularly active, singularly acces- 
sible. Though in neutral countries moral conditions are ap- 
proximately normal, in the countries which are at Avar 
they are very far from normal — not abnormally low, but 
almost superhumanly high. The very unity and cohesion 
of a race has carried the individual beyond his normal 
range. Each people is as a single family; there is neither 
high nor low, rich nor poor, but a brotherhood of men. 
No man counts his life dear unto himself. All are fight- 
ing with unquestioning devotion for homes and father- 
land, for language, institutions, traditions, for all that they 
hold most sacred and most dear. Whatever we may believe 
about the folly or the deliberate wrong-doing of governments, 
the fact remains that each people is in a state of spiritual ex- 
altation. Individuals are everywhere thinking, feeling, suf- 
fering, facing the ultimate issues of life and death. Their 
senses are sharpened, their spirits sensitized to the signifi- 
cance of what had become commonplace, to familiar land- 
scapes, to the associations of home, to the ideals of the race, to 
its heroism and its poetry, to the symbols of its religion. This 
thing is like a tidal wave of the sea ; it has drawn deep. And 
in the hour of their aspiration and their agony, they have 
turned to us, beseeching our understanding and approval. 
Powerful and sophisticated peoples have cried out to us with 
the helplessness and simplicity of children, as if we for the 
time being represented to them that World Spirit of reason 
and wisdom which alone can rescue them from irreparable 
tragedy. 

We may believe with truth that their desire for our good 
will has been somewhat a matter of material self-seeking; 
but only the most shallow cynicism can fail to discern that it 
is also much more. We have only to turn to their own peri- 
odicals to know that each nation, in the confused complexity 
of its motives, has been swept by a genuine passion of self- 

(10) 



justification — a passion that indicates in each a sense of loy- 
alty to a standard of national conduct. It is our unique oppor- 
tunity to propose to each the supreme ethical challenge which, 
whether or not any can rise to the point of accepting it, must 
for ourselves and for them endure through the coming cen- 
turies as a tangible expression of the international ideal. 

Now between the maximum for which we hope and the 
minimum which we may expect to obtain, there is one possi- 
ble gain that should not be overlooked. Even though ideal pro- 
posals be rejected, a conference of perpetual mediation would 
supply a means of defining the issue and hastening the dis- 
covery of such a basis of settlement as would normally be 
reached at the end of the war. The device of such a confer- 
ence might well be adopted at the beginning of any war, for any 
problem that justifies bloodshed is worthy of the collective, 
systematic thinking of the race. And it is possible for each 
party to a conflict to be somewhat mistaken as to what the 
other supposes the main issues to be. Any confusion of is- 
sues must result in a tragic waste of effort. Especially is 
there danger of such waste in the present war. In the vast- 
ness of the issues involved, in the nature of the deadlock, in 
the interest which the neutral powers have in finding a solu- 
tion, the world problem is unprecedented and may well de- 
mand a pioneer method of treatment- Noble races are en- 
gaged in a death struggle, kindred peoples who have no real 
quarrel, who would rather be friends, but who cannot come 
to an understanding because they have no true opportunity to 
communicate. So far as the peoples are concerned, the war 
began on a few days' notice. There was no time to talk 
then ; there is no chance to talk now. There will be no op- 
portunity to be rational until all the nations are practically 
exhausted unless a machinery can be devised to do the think- 
ing and interpreting on neutral ground. Hence a conference of 
perpetual mediation, proceeding by a method of simultaneous 
standing proposals, might prove to have a practical value in- 
dependent of the willingness of the powers to accept an ideal 
plan. Nevertheless it must not be forgotten that whatever 
modifications may be introduced for discussion later by the 

(11) 



belligerents themselves, the initial standing proposal of the 
neutral powers should be based on some such universal prin- 
ciples as we have already indicated, for, as we have seen, 
(1) such a proposal is an expression of the ideal and is there- 
fore worth holding- before the imagination of the world ; (2) it 
is a neutral proposal because it is based on abstract princi- 
ples; (3) it approaches a sound bargain because it is based 
on principles which govern the welfare of all, and as a sound 
bargain it may ultimately produce a practical effect on the 
attitude of the governments. 

But let us repeat that it is on the ground of the minimum 
result that may be expected from prompt action that we de- 
sire chiefly to base our argument. We wish to emphasize the 
point that the awful force of human anguish will be to a cer- 
tain extent dissipated and wasted unless it can in some way 
be concentrated to drive the idea of world peace into the 
minds of the people. It is the task of the neutral powers to 
put the psychological screws in place and let nature turn 
them by the relentless pinch of physical fact. If a sin- 
gle belligerent government could be induced to commit itself, 
though of course conditionally, to the sound programme, that 
were a hitherto unparalleled triumph for the cause of paci- 
fism. But even if no such result could be effected, even if the 
only result were the crystallizing of an avowedly national 
sentiment in one neutral country and of popular opinion in 
other lands, the effort would be worth while. And that any 
government should have taken an historic stand for the radi- 
cal right would be for all time a source of pride and thank- 
fulness to its people. 

But there is a third question to be asked : For the individ- 
ual believer in the cause of peace, what, under actually exist- 
ing circumstances, is the natural thing to do? We may say 
confidently that there arc more than the prophet's seven thou- 
sand in every neutral country who believe ardently in the 
cause of peace and are willing to put forth their utmost effort 
in its support. To them we make our appeal. Tf the course 
of action which we have outlined is indeed the reasonable one. 
for the neutral nations to follow, if it contains any promise of 
help, direct or indirect, immediate or future, to the cause of 

(12) 



peace, then the natural thing for the individual to do is to 
advocate that course in season and out of season, by personal 
propaganda, through the press, through public meetings, by 
resolutions of societies, through open letters to persons of au- 
thority. When he has striven by every means at his command 
to gain for the matter the serious consideration of the neutral 
peoples and the neutral governments, then and not till then 
has he delivered his soul. 

Our task is a definite one. It is the task of persuading the 
neutral governments to immediate action. We shall on 
every hand encounter the opinion that when the belligerents 
are ready for mediation, they can make the move for it with- 
out further interference from us ; that we shall gain by wait- 
ing until thev are in a mood to listen to us. Let us in con- 
elusion sum up the principal arguments against this view; 
(1) Though opposed to armistice and not consciously ready 
for mediation, the belligerents may in reality be more open 
than either we or they themselves are aware to a cunningly 
devised temptation to the course of common sense. (2) They 
dread speedy settlement because they dread compromise ; but 
a proposal, for example, for the formation of a Peace League 
and the adjustment of disputes by appeal to the principle of 
nationality* does not involve the great evil of compromise — 
namely, the danger of a speedy resumption of hostilities. 
(3) The warring nations themselves are unwilling to initiate 
a movement for peace; and in the meantime the peoples 
are powerless to communicate. For the sake of the wel- 
fare of all, for the sake of a dispassionate examination 
and a universal interpretation, the neutral nations must work 
out plans and propose them. (4) If a standing proposal is 
likely to exert a psychological pressure that will tend to 
hasten the time of settlement, then it is a grave wrong to de- 
lay putting it before the belligerents. Though it may not be 
immediately accepted, yet the sooner it is made, the sooner it 



:,r The principle of nationality is here understood to mean the prin- 
ciple that any racial unit should have freedom to develop according to 
its own genius, in so far as its development does not interfere with 
the equal freedom of every other racial unit. Such freedom can be ac- 
corded within any unit of government. 

(13) 



will take effect. Dare we delay to act when promptness of 
action may in the long run save even a week of bloodshed and 
suffering? (5) A radical proposal made simultaneously to 
the warring powers would tend to promote not only speedy 
settlement but sound settlement. It would at the least begin 
the task which must be begun sometime of bringing the force 
of sane public opinion to bear upon the conservatism of gov- 
ernments ; and now while public opinion is reinforced by eco- 
nomic pressure within the nation and by danger from with- 
out, it may be easier to make that force felt than it will be 
later. (6) The only alternative to prompt action is passive 
acquiescence in the indefinite continuation of the war — a war 
that is daily weakening the vitality of Europe, sweeping 
away the slow gain of centuries, "mortgaging the future of 
civilization." and bringing inestimable loss upon our chil- 
dren and our children's children. 

Shall we wait until these blind and futile forces have spent 
themselves ? The time to make a resolute effort to save our 
world is noii', before the destruction has gone any further. 

APPENDIX. 

The Wisconsin Plan was embodied in the platform of the 
National Peace Conference at Chicago as follows : 

This National Convention of men and women of the United 
States, assembled in Chicago under the auspices of the Emer- 
gency Peace Federation, recognizes the wisdom of the attitude 
of neutrality toward the European war, so carefully main- 
tained by the President of the United States; but believes 
that the time has now come for an extension of the principle 
of neutrality by a conference of neutral nations called to con- 
sider the existing international situation. 

The organization of modern society has made nations so in- 
terdependent that it is no longer possible for two nations to 
wage war without imposing suffering on all other nations and 
outraging the universal sense of humanity. No nation can 
declare war upon another without thereby in some measure 
declaring war upon all other nations. 

(14) 



We, therefore, respectfully urge that the government of the 
United Slates immediately call a conference of the neutral 
nations of the world. Such a conference should mediate, with 
armistice if possible, without armistice if necessary, but in 
such a way as not to endanger the neutrality of any nation; 
it should constitute a voluntary court of continuous media- 
tion, at least so long as the war should last; it should invite 
suggestions of settlement from each of the warring nations 
and submit to all of them simultaneously reasonable proposals, 
based upon the principles: (1) that peace must not mean 
humiliation to any nation ,• and (2) that it must not involve 
compromise which might result in a renewal of the war. Such 
a conference should exert every possible effort to prevent any 
of the neutral nations from becoming involved in the present 
war. 

RESOLUTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF 
WISCONSIN 

The following resolutions were adopted by the Wisconsin 
Legislative Session of 1915: 

JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39, S. 

Memorializing the President of the United States to urge 
<i conference of the unit rat mil inns of the world. 

Whereas, There is now being waged a war of hitherto un- 
equaled destructiveness which is weakening the stamina of 
entire races and retarding the moral and intellectual progress 
of all nations, neutral and belligerent alike; and 

Whereas, The bitterness between the warring peoples en- 
gendered of the strife makes it virtually impossible for the 
nations engaged,, if left to themselves, to open communica- 
tions looking to peace; and 

Whereas, The wisdom and universal brotherhood of the 
twentieth century should in the name of our common human 
ity seek to find a reasonable solution of the questions involved 
m the present war before either side is reduced to exhaustion; 
and 

Whereas, We believe in view of the ever increasing tragedv 

(15) 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS f 

020 934 806 8 

of the war that active efforts should be made to the end, first, 
that the warring nations should be given the opportunity. 
without fear of compromise or loss of dignity to consider the 
possibilities of bringing the war to a close on an honorable 
basis, and. secondly, that the people of the neutral nations 
who are appalled at the destruction being wrought and who 
desire out of the depths of their hearts to help their suffering 
brothers on both sides of the conflict, should be given an op- 
portunity to do so; and 

"Whereas, The plan here proposed offers a form of media- 
tion which would leave each neutral and each belligerent alike 
free to act as circumstances may demand; would judge no 
one, dictate to no one. eoerce no one: would endanger the 
neutrality of no nation ; would marshal the moral forces of 
the world, and without loss of time bring them to bear on a 
problem of unparalleled magnitude; and would offer to the 
warring powers an opportunity to consider all possible path- 
ways to peace without involving humiliation to any or com- 
mittal to an arbitrary program ; therefore be it 

Resolved, By the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That 
the plan for continuous mediation without armistice which 
was proposed by the "Wisconsin Peace Society and adopted 
by the National Peace Conference at Chicago in February, be 
respectfully commended to the attention of the President of 
the United States, and that the Senate and Assembly of the 
State of Wisconsin respectfully urge the President to call a 
conference of the neutral nations to sit throughout the war 
for the purpose of continuous and independent mediation 
with or without armistice, and if necessary, without the spe- 
cific permission of the belligerents : such conference to con- 
sider and submit simultaneously to the warring powers a 
reasonable proposition based on principles most favorable to 
the establishment of a permanent peace, and to continue to 
seek by the method of simultaneous proposals and by inviting 
suggestions from the belligerents, some basis of settlement 
which may appeal to all as worthy of consideration, 

And be it further resolved, That a copy of these resolutions, 
signed by the president of the Senate and the speaker of the 
Assembly, be forwarded to the President of the Tinted State-. 

no) 



iS RARY 0F congress 

020 934 806 8 • 



Metal Edge, Inc. 2006 RAT. 



